Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Appeal in Jan 6 Case
Nov 15, 2024 16:05:08 GMT -5
Post by schwartzie on Nov 15, 2024 16:05:08 GMT -5
Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Appeal in Jan 6 Case
Nick R. Hamilton
November 15, 2024 - 9:27 am
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Jan. 6 defendant who challenged his conviction related to charges stemming from the Capitol protests in 2021.
John Nassif, the defendant who filed the appeal, was convicted on charges of “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” at the Capitol.
The misdemeanor charge is one of the most common in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases.
Nassif was sentenced to seven months in prison on four misdemeanor convictions, including parading and violent entry, the Washington Examiner reported.
Public defenders argue that Nassif has a First Amendment right to demonstrate at the Capitol.
However, the lower courts have disagreed.
According to Nassif’s defenders, he was inside the Capitol briefly, for about 10 minutes.
He only entered an hour after the initial breach of the building.
His defenders say the parading charge criminalizes First Amendment expression that bears no comparison to the violent conduct of some other January 6 defendants and is “in no way disruptive.”
Lower courts, including the federal appeals court of D.C., have ruled that “The People’s House” is not a forum for the public to air grievances with their government, despite what some may think.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court said:
“Nassif has not established that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for use by members of the public to voice whatever concerns they may have — much less to use for protests, pickets, or demonstrations.”
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected Nassif’s appeal.
The ruling will spare the DOJ a potentially massive setback in hundreds of cases.
However, it may be a temporary victory for the Biden-Harris administration.
President Donald Trump has often described the January 6 participants as “patriots” who have been treated unfairly by the weaponized justice system.
As such, Trump has promised to pardon many of them.
Hundreds of January 6 defendants have been charged over the protests.
However, many of the defendants did not spend much time inside the Capitol or otherwise remained peaceful.
“I am inclined to pardon many of them,” Trump said previously.
“I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably they got out of control.”
The Supreme Court rebuked the Justice Department earlier this year for its sweeping interpretation of a felony obstruction law that prosecutors used in hundreds of January 6 cases.
The justices expressed concern in that case, Fischer v. United States, about overzealous prosecution chilling the right to protest.
The court held that the DOJ requires evidence of physical destruction of documents to bring charges for obstruction of an official proceeding.
These charges had never been used against protesters before January 6.
link
Nick R. Hamilton
November 15, 2024 - 9:27 am
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Jan. 6 defendant who challenged his conviction related to charges stemming from the Capitol protests in 2021.
John Nassif, the defendant who filed the appeal, was convicted on charges of “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” at the Capitol.
The misdemeanor charge is one of the most common in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases.
Nassif was sentenced to seven months in prison on four misdemeanor convictions, including parading and violent entry, the Washington Examiner reported.
Public defenders argue that Nassif has a First Amendment right to demonstrate at the Capitol.
However, the lower courts have disagreed.
According to Nassif’s defenders, he was inside the Capitol briefly, for about 10 minutes.
He only entered an hour after the initial breach of the building.
His defenders say the parading charge criminalizes First Amendment expression that bears no comparison to the violent conduct of some other January 6 defendants and is “in no way disruptive.”
Lower courts, including the federal appeals court of D.C., have ruled that “The People’s House” is not a forum for the public to air grievances with their government, despite what some may think.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court said:
“Nassif has not established that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for use by members of the public to voice whatever concerns they may have — much less to use for protests, pickets, or demonstrations.”
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected Nassif’s appeal.
The ruling will spare the DOJ a potentially massive setback in hundreds of cases.
However, it may be a temporary victory for the Biden-Harris administration.
President Donald Trump has often described the January 6 participants as “patriots” who have been treated unfairly by the weaponized justice system.
As such, Trump has promised to pardon many of them.
Hundreds of January 6 defendants have been charged over the protests.
However, many of the defendants did not spend much time inside the Capitol or otherwise remained peaceful.
“I am inclined to pardon many of them,” Trump said previously.
“I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably they got out of control.”
The Supreme Court rebuked the Justice Department earlier this year for its sweeping interpretation of a felony obstruction law that prosecutors used in hundreds of January 6 cases.
The justices expressed concern in that case, Fischer v. United States, about overzealous prosecution chilling the right to protest.
The court held that the DOJ requires evidence of physical destruction of documents to bring charges for obstruction of an official proceeding.
These charges had never been used against protesters before January 6.
link
